On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:56:37 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:16:24PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> > it's usefule when browsing at packages.debian.org too!
> Well hopefully, packages.d.o will be migrated to package tags as well,
> once they are in place.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:16:24PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> it's usefule when browsing at packages.debian.org too!
Well hopefully, packages.d.o will be migrated to package tags as well,
once they are in place.
> if we can't have gnustep section i would like the gnome and kde
> sections remov
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 01:53:40 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 05:56:12PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > shells 292
> > > news327
> > > embedded383
> > > electronics 515
> > > oldlibs
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 05:56:12PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > shells 292
> > news327
> > embedded383
> > electronics 515
> > oldlibs 647
> ^^^
> Geez.
[...]
Really, I believe it would serve Debian bet
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:57:46AM +0100, G?rkan Seng?n wrote:
>> >> I believe we need a new section called "gnustep", just like we have
>> >> one for gnome and kde.
>> > I think this is a good idea. Would it start by being populated with
>> > anything depending on g
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 12:15:00PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> This invalidates my argument, although 47 (or 90 as you estimate)
> packages with 'gnustep' in the description (apt-cache search gnustep|wc
> -l) is still less than 263 (gnome) or 212 (kde) packages, it isn't
> unlike the smal
Gürkan Sengün wrote:
> > On topic: I don't really think a section for this few packages is worth
> > it.
> I think it is worth because
> gnustep *clearly* does not belong in the x11 section.
>
> > Package count (binary, unstable of two days ago, without contrib and
> > non-free) is below, and it s
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 11:54:38AM +0100, G?rkan Seng?n wrote:
> > Package count (binary, unstable of two days ago, without contrib and
> > non-free) is below, and it shows that even the smallest section has nearly
> > 300 packages.
> Nice try butc can you tell me how you got to that numbers, exact
> On topic: I don't really think a section for this few packages is worth
> it.
I think it is worth because
gnustep *clearly* does not belong in the x11 section.
> Package count (binary, unstable of two days ago, without contrib and
> non-free) is below, and it shows that even the smallest section
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:57:46AM +0100, G?rkan Seng?n wrote:
> >> I believe we need a new section called "gnustep", just like we have one
> >> for gnome and kde.
> > I think this is a good idea. Would it start by being populated with
> > anything depending on gnustep*, or did I not think that thr
>> I believe we need a new section called "gnustep", just like we have one
>> for gnome and kde.
> I think this is a good idea. Would it start by being populated with
> anything depending on gnustep*, or did I not think that through? What
> packages would that give?
Yep, this would also help me hav
On 2004-03-14 03:34:31 + Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe we need a new section called "gnustep", just
> like we have one for gnome and kde.
I think this is a good idea. Would it start by being populated with anything
depending on gnustep*, or did I not think that through
12 matches
Mail list logo
